Back
High Court Bar Association of Manipur Opposes Judicial Officer Elevation Over Quota
Imphal – – The has formally urged the Chief Justice of India to reconsider and recall a recommendation made by the Collegium to elevate a Judicial Officer to the bench. In a representation addressed to the CJI and other senior functionaries, the Association warned that the appointment would further disrupt the prescribed , which it claims has already been compromised.
A Deepening Quota Dispute
At the heart of the plea is the for the appointment of High Court judges, which envisions a ratio of 66⅔ percent of judges from the Bar and 33⅓ percent from the Judicial Officers' cadre. The HCBAM argues that since Manipur became a full-fledged High Court in , the actual ratio has slipped to 50:50. Three judges—Justices N. Kotiswar Singh, Kh. Nobin Singh, and A. Bimol Singh—were elevated from the Bar, while three others—Justices T. Serto, Aribam Guneshwar Sharma, and Gaiphunshillu Golmei—came from the Judicial Officers' cadre.
With two vacancies currently existing, the Association contends that both should be filled exclusively from the Bar to restore the mandated proportion. However, reports have emerged that the High Court Collegium has recommended a Judicial Officer for one of the two posts, a move the Bar says would further tilt the balance.
Appeal to the
In its representation dated September 9, the HCBAM requested the CJI and the “not to act upon the recommendation made by the in favor of the Judicial Officer/s” and instead await a fresh recommendation from among members of the Bar. The Association emphasized that “the will be seriously affected and is not in the interest of the Bar at large besides in total contradiction of the MoP.”
The had also raised the same issue in a separate representation on , praying for early filling of vacancies “by maintaining the .”
A History of Uneven Elevations
The HCBAM’s detailed chronology highlights how the balance shifted. Appointments in —Justices Guneshwar Sharma and Golmei—were both from the Bench, leading to what the Bar calls an “excessive” representation of Judicial Officers. Since then, no elevation from the Bar has occurred, even as two vacancies arose. The Association argues that the only way to “recover the said loss” is to fill both vacant posts from the Bar, selecting advocates with “diversified knowledge of law, long-standing practice, professional integrity and experience.”
The Memorandum of Procedure: A Binding Guideline?
The MoP, as cited in the representation, states: “66⅔ posts for Members of Bar and 33⅓ posts for Judicial Officers. .” The Bar maintains that this is not merely a convention but a binding guideline that must be strictly adhered to. The representation further notes that the MoP envisions due weightage to of Judicial Officers and social diversity, but insists that the quota must first be corrected.
Next Steps
The matter now lies with the , which has the authority to accept, reject, or modify the High Court’s recommendation. The HCBAM has also copied its plea to the Governor of Manipur, the Chief Minister, and the Union Minister of Law & Justice. With the pendency of cases in the rising and the current strength of judges struggling to manage the workload, the Bar has urged an early decision that respects both the MoP and the legitimate aspirations of the legal community.
“For this act of kindness we shall remain ever thankful,” the representation concluded, in a tone of deference mixed with urgency. The legal fraternity now awaits the Collegium’s response.
